Science —

Is our scientists learning to write?

A recent article in Science asks if some of the methods we currently use to …

In a recent issue of Science, Cary Moskovitz and David Kellogg consider the way students are taught science and science writing in laboratory courses, and whether current approaches really provide the best tools for the job. They conclude that inquiry-based writing might be better than the current approaches—writing to learn (WTL) and writing as professionalization (WAP)—at developing students' skills of scientific inquiry.

WTL treats writing as a tool to enhance learning about science, and it's a teaching method that I don't think was a part of my own undergraduate education. Students are asked to "address thought-provoking questions such as 'What can I claim?' and 'How do I know?'" As the authors point out, this isn't that helpful for developing the writing skills that are expected further down the career path.

The writing assignments I remember, especially those related to lab work, would be classified as WAP, which is an extension of the kind of lab report that was standard fare in high school. WAP has the students write in the same formats they would encounter professionally; an experimental research paper, conference poster, or literature review.

Moskovitz and Kellogg point to some problems with this method, though. The introduction of a research article is used by its authors to highlight a gap in the current understanding of a topic, but undergrads lack the breadth of knowledge to do this effectively. Even the methods section is problematic, they suggest, as this mainly involves the students paraphrasing the protocols they've been given.

Inquiry-based writing builds on WAP by changing the relationship between the student and the instructor grading their work. The example the authors give turns a standard titration lab into a double-blind experiment. The students are randomly assigned contaminated or uncontaminated reagents without being told this has happened. The person(s) grading the lab reports is also in the dark as to which student received what reagent. This changes their relationship with the written work; instead of approaching it merely as a grader looking to check off specific elements, they have to read the reports the same way they would read the latest paper in the Journal of Whatever, with the expectation that the students make convincing scientific arguments to support their data.

Moskovitz and Kellogg acknowledge that this would involve a good deal of work for the teaching staff, but that's important enough that universities should at least consider it as an approach, either introducing it gradually or across the board. It seems like a good idea from where I'm sitting, but then I don't have to do any teaching currently, so have little vested interest other than my desire to fix lots of the problems we currently face with the training of young scientists.

I do have real concerns about the current state of science writing, and the way that young scientists "learn" how to do it, although not really in the way Moskovitz and Kellogg discuss it. Simply put, scientists really need to be taught how to write well, and that probably means they should be taught by someone other than their fellow scientists. Being able to explain your work clearly ought to be one of the most vital skills scientists develop, but reading an average journal article provides scant evidence of that being a common ability.

As with many specialist fields, science suffers from a strong tendency towards the use of impenetrable jargon, and passive run-on sentences are very much the rule, not the exception. The rare occasions when one runs into a paper that's well written and accessible are a joy. Sadly, I think there's a bias away from making papers accessible to a wider audience, which is a real mistake given the terrible state of science literacy among the public that funds the bulk of our science.

The problem as I see it is that writing is a skill that requires practice like any other. I know I'm a much better writer now than I was before I'd written 600+ articles for Ars Technica; working with good editors is also a huge factor in that. Unfortunately, most scientists don't get the opportunity to write that often, and rarely see their work edited by anyone other than their fellow researchers.

The art of writing is disappearing quickly. I wouldn't say that it's just the scientists who're suffering. It has been years since I've had a composition course in college, and I can still see the glaring errors my students make in emails and in homework that involves putting words together. I teach math, so I don't have to grade papers, but if students are required to write a sentence for an answer to a story problem, I get all kinds of fun things to read!

As a former TA for a first-year Physics course, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do a far better job teaching students how to write and think about science. However, I think our biggest challenge is that from what I've seen, many kids coming out of high school in North America lack the ability to string together a coherent paragraph never mind make an insight into the experiment. Another problem is that the students seem conditioned to be afraid of showing an unexpected result, and are terrified of admitting that they did something incorrectly. I lost track early on of how many students gave concluding statements that contradicted their results, or how many times I got bizarre sources of error that weren't really thought through.

There is plenty of bad writing in the humanities, and the prose is even worse in philosophy and some of the social sciences. I have been told repeatedly to read good writing and mimic good writers' style, tone, voice, and methods of explanation. I would personally recommend that scientists today should try to read some journals and articles from before WWII, and before the passive voice became prevalent in scientific writing; Nature, the American Naturalist, and Science from around 1900s-1930s, are all good places to look.

I think the idea in that paper sounds pretty solid- I would not have learned to write like a scientist in undergrad very well were it not for my Honors Thesis.

MadMac_5 wrote:

As a former TA for a first-year Physics course, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do a far better job teaching students how to write and think about science. However, I think our biggest challenge is that from what I've seen, many kids coming out of high school in North America lack the ability to string together a coherent paragraph never mind make an insight into the experiment. Another problem is that the students seem conditioned to be afraid of showing an unexpected result, and are terrified of admitting that they did something incorrectly. I lost track early on of how many students gave concluding statements that contradicted their results, or how many times I got bizarre sources of error that weren't really thought through.

As for the above, I think that an emphasis on the uncertain and ever-changing nature of the scientific landscape would be helpful in getting kids to let go of their fear of being incorrect, especially in science classes. When you write a critical literature paper, you are told there is no wrong answer! It should be like that with science as well (as long as the answers given are well supported, of course).

I think that, to extent, it has to be expected that good scientific writing will continue to be taught beyond the undergraduate degree. All of my skills regarding preparing manuscripts have been picked up through feedback from my supervisors on my own work as well as literature review as it pertains to my research.

The structure of undergraduate lab write-ups just isn't a good way to really learn proper writing. Unfortunately I think that the same structure is important for teaching basic research skills. I'm currently a TA for an undergraduate physics course where the teachers have made a real effort to emphasize writing skill by requiring a small number of journal-style write-ups instead of weekly lab reports. The writing quality is actually quite good, but it comes at expense of a write-up style that showcases basic data analysis.

To be honest, I have a problem with the way every facet of education is being taught in the US. Everywhere I go, it's all about memorization. Memorizing chemical formulas, patterns, etc. for science, memorizing mathematical formulas for math, memorizing important dates and events for history, memorizing vocab words for english. It's everywhere. And it doesn't work either.

There is a method of memorization which allows you to retain the information quite well, but it requires going over the material repeatedly at increasingly long intervals. Not only is this impractical for most teaching environments, it's also horribly inefficient. Though teach through memorization is currently the easiest teaching method, so schools continue to employ this while failing to properly optimize it for best results (due to cost or time constraints, or something else).

Regardless, teaching by memorization shouldn't be used for education in the the first place. Students need to be taught in a way the engages their mind in thought. Don't tell them how to use a mathematical formula. Instead, give them a problem, and ask them to solve it. Then, after they've struggled with it for a bit, show them the formula and explain to them how it works. Let them decide for themselves how to use it.

You can easily apply a similar method to history. Students should be educated in such a way that causes them to pay attention to what triggered certain events in history, and how the world responded to those events. Not just when they happened and what the result was.

I'm a little dismayed by the assertion that scientific publications don't emphasize "what can I claim" and "how do I know". These questions are pretty much central to any (good) scientific paper. They may get buried under complex descriptions of methods, but a lot of the papers I read could benefit from bringing these questions more to the fore.

edit: looks like the article has been clarified: it now points out that the original authors say these are important but not enough. Thanks to both Ars and the original authors for being on the ball and responding to comments!

Students are asked to "address thought-provoking questions such as 'What can I claim?' and 'How do I know?'" As the authors point out, this isn't that helpful for developing the skills that are expected further down the career path, since scientific publications don't emphasize these things.

Whut?! Learning to ask yourselves 'what can I claim' and 'how do I support those claims' is part of the scientific method. Suggesting that this isn't 'helpful' is ridiculous. And scientific publications don't check anything other than grammar/spelling mistakes and format. Reviewers, on the other hand, do watch out for overly broad and ill-supported claims. I haven't read the paper, but from the summary here, it sounds like the authors have dismissed one teaching method just to make it easier to get to their pet theory.

Making something 'accessible' shouldn't come at the cost of results and conclusions being less robust.

I liked the way my undergraduate senior chemical engineering lab approached this -- we were put in groups of 4 for the semester and we had to do 3 large experiments. In each case, we were not told what or how to do the experiments. We were given a problem statement and expected to read the literature and the instrumentation manuals and figure out what measurements to take and how to apply the data to solving the problem.

We had to formulate our approach to the problem and write a 1 page memo for the professor heading that particular experiment -- before taking a single measurement. We would then meet with the professor as if he or she were our boss and we were having a meeting to discuss the plans for the project, where he would criticize our plan and make sure we were on track.

We'd then spend 2 6 hour sessions in the lab performing the experiments and collecting data. Then, we wrote a very lengthy lab report in the format that would be expected in industry. First we had a rough draft, which was read and heavily edited by the professor leading the experiment, as well as a professor in the Writing Dept. who specializes in professional writing. We also met with both professors so they could tell us face to face where we needed to make changes and why our writing was or wasn't any good. We then had a week or two to take into consideration all of their suggestions and write up a final draft.

The papers were 40-60 pages easily, and we wrote them as a group for the first project, then in pairs of 2 for the second, and then individually for the third. We were not allowed to speak with anyone about what we were writing or how we were interpreting the data, ensuring that we all got TONS of experience writing and analyzing. Although it was extremely arduous -- I must have spent 40 hours a week in the library working solely for this class -- I think it was a great experience and far, far more rigorous and useful than the senior labs I've had fellow ChemE's describe.

The problem with this format is that professors don't want to spend so much fucking time reading and meeting with students!

Hi, this is David Kellogg, the second author of the Science paper. I appreciate the discussion our paper has generated, but I think a key element of the paper has been mis-characterized. If I were ggordon or grimlog, I'd object as well. But our paper doesn't say what is being objected to.

*Nowhere* -- I repeat, nowhere -- do we assert that scientific publications don't emphasize things such as "What can I claim?" and "How do I know?" Nowhere do we say that such questions are not helpful. In fact, these elements of the WTL approach are very helpful; they just aren't enough. The problem with WTL is that these questions remain grounded in a pedagogy that doesn't take the writing seriously *as writing*; as we write, "In WTL, writing is primarily a tool to enhance scientific learning; it treats writing as a means rather than an end."

In fact, in our hypothetical titration experiment, the writing assignment we describe emphasizes precisely these things. We write: "What would inquiry-based writing in this lab look like? No longer compelled to have students write an introduction or describe methods, we might ask them to write only a single, well-designed page. This page would include a main claim supported by key results, appropriate visual displays, analysis of error, and so forth. Although considerably shorter than the typical lab report,this assignment makes authentic rhetorical demands, requiring students to argue for an interpretation of their data under constraints typically faced by the writing scientist. Similar to the body of a “letter” or “short communication,”this highly condensed writing can help students learn to construct a representation of their data that is both selective and compelling."

The whole goal of our approach is to generate authentic, rhetorically powerful writing assignments for scientists in training. I think those who read the original paper will recognize this.

Good communication, written especially but verbal as well, seems like a rare commodity. I'm an engineering manager and I have to deal with an amazing number of professionals whose communication skill is weak. It diminishes their value to any organization and it masks their knowledge and ability.

Anything we do to improve their communication, before entering the job force, would be a good idea.

I'm a little dismayed by the assertion that scientific publications don't emphasize "what can I claim" and "how do I know". These questions are pretty much central to any (good) scientific paper. They may get buried under complex descriptions of methods, but a lot of the papers I read could benefit from bringing these questions more to the fore.

I'd be dismayed too, ggordon, if that's what we wrote. But it isn't. See my more extended reply below, and thanks.

Whut?! Learning to ask yourselves 'what can I claim' and 'how do I support those claims' is part of the scientific method. Suggesting that this isn't 'helpful' is ridiculous.

Hi grimlog: I agree! Fortunately, we suggested nothing of the kind; I'm sorry you got that impression from this article. Email me (kellogg dot david at gmail dot com) if you want a copy of the actual paper.

Scientists do not need to become magnificent writers. That is why scientific journals have an editing staff. Scientists should be intimately familiar with writing research papers, but they do not need to be red-ink wielding grammar Nazis. Speaking as a student of the discipline, we can write just fine. The problem lies in boiling complex ideas down to a level that the average moron has a chance to comprehend.

Scientists do not need to become magnificent writers. That is why scientific journals have an editing staff. Scientists should be intimately familiar with writing research papers, but they do not need to be red-ink wielding grammar Nazis. Speaking as a student of the discipline, we can write just fine. The problem lies in boiling complex ideas down to a level that the average moron has a chance to comprehend.

Hi, this is David Kellogg, the second author of the Science paper. I appreciate the discussion our paper has generated, but I think a key element of the paper has been mis-characterized. If I were ggordon or grimlog, I'd object as well. But our paper doesn't say what is being objected to.

I'm sorry if you feel I've mischaracterized your argument. I thought the novel ideas you put forward were more important to focus on than an extended description of a teaching method that "doesn't take the writing seriously *as writing*" since the post was about how to get scientists to learn how to write better.

Dyndrilliac wrote:

Scientists do not need to become magnificent writers. That is why scientific journals have an editing staff. Scientists should be intimately familiar with writing research papers, but they do not need to be red-ink wielding grammar Nazis. Speaking as a student of the discipline, we can write just fine. The problem lies in boiling complex ideas down to a level that the average moron has a chance to comprehend.

A scientist that receives public funding ought to be able to explain the core of their work to their grandmother.

I'm sorry if you feel I've mischaracterized your argument. I thought the novel ideas you put forward were more important to focus on than an extended description of a teaching method that "doesn't take the writing seriously *as writing*" since the post was about how to get scientists to learn how to write better.

Now it's my turn to apologize: You characterized most of our argument quite well! My objection was to a minor point in an otherwise fine article. I didn't want to quibble, but I felt the need when that minor point became a focus of the forum. Honestly, I'm delighted by this piece on the whole.

No one here has yet mentioned the fact that writing project proposals takes up a large proportion of most scientists time. In general these proposals must be clear, easily understood by a non-specialist and spell out in great detail why taxpayers money should be spent on asking a particular research question. Competition is fierce and I can absolutely assure you that good writing skills are an enormous benefit to increasing the success rate of proposals. There is therefore a very strong feedback to improve writing skills for real scientists, and all the successful scientists I know are excellent written communicators.

The point of the Kellogg article seems to be pretty simple and clear, and is a sensible way to get students thinking analytically about how best to communicate and why they are communicating.

I readily concur with the assertion that much science writing (both professional and mainstream) is very much in need of improvement. As an aside, I don't think at all the problem is confined to the realm of science. I trained as a biologist but now work in the quite unrelated field of aerospace engineering, and the problem is also quite apparent there, though naturally the consequences take a different form.

I'd be interested to see a few items the author of the Ars Technica piece would characterize as "well written and accessible." I should note this isn't because I at all disagree with his claim, but on account of their rarity, I'd like to see a few more positive examples. Thanks.

Twitter and the SMS generation are redefining the art of writing. I've read countless Bell Labs papers. Some of those papers just give me a major headache. The worst suffer from basic poor organization. Section 1a. refers to Section 13d for a definition, and Chapter 3 steers the reader to Chapter 12 for 'further dependencies' .

Scientific writing requires a mastery of the subject. Researchers often find themselves focusing on solving a problem, or unraveling a mystery. Stepping back from the woods can be somewhat terrifying since the nuances of a solution or insight can be lost in the translation to lay terms. A good point of reference is the often suggested rule "Board meetings require a 8th grade vocabulary to assure maximum effective communications".

At some point, scientists need to address business, and quite frankly, business isn't science. If your reaction to that statement is defiant defense that business is science, you have never been nor likely will ever be a scientist.

A well written scientific document will contain the facts, supporting references, all the elements, with a major difference, that it flows. Concepts build on concepts. Assumptions are pointed out, reference material used accurately and quoted where need be. The reader should never be forced to incessantly page turn to other internal references to complete reading the work.

Research and development isn't writing. Twitter and SMS don't represent science, except in an observation. 140 character sentences aren't the sole problem. There's simple no continuous, organized flow to SMS, Twitter. They remind me of dogs barking at night and is reminiscent of. "hey, Hey, hehey hey, heya hey" WTF is that.

Do I need to place an "I think" in front of a sentence. Who else is writing these words? Its me. If I want to minimize my statement by say "I'm not really sure" or "I don't have any real evidence", then what is the point of writing? To entertain I suppose. I think. Well. Sorta. Ya know. Could be.

It isn't just in science that writing is a lost art. Where are the writing contests? Where are the writers that are making a living from factual, informative highly necessary papers?

The ultra privatization of what seems to be *everything*, is driving quality *down*, to the least common denominator - sales.

We need a new Internet specifically for the purpose of the original Internet. For scientists, engineers, students, and other contributors to organize and share their works.

An original web, where only scientists, engineers, researchers and student could join, would breath new life into a network *designed* to encourage writing, and excellence - the Commercialization of the Internet beginning in 1994 has crushed America's research and engineering talent.

A new network is coming. And the original rules will be on, plus a few. No commercials, no ads, no SPAM, no self-serving posts. No flame wars. It worked because mutual respect works.

Then rebirthing writing can flourish. Until then, the Internet will be cesspool to wade through to get to any tidbit of insight, humor, shared experience, shared work. Why write a great document and toss it in the cesspool?

Whut?! Learning to ask yourselves 'what can I claim' and 'how do I support those claims' is part of the scientific method. Suggesting that this isn't 'helpful' is ridiculous.

Hi grimlog: I agree! Fortunately, we suggested nothing of the kind; I'm sorry you got that impression from this article. Email me (kellogg dot david at gmail dot com) if you want a copy of the actual paper.

Then you have my apologies. Kudos for following up on the reporting here. And luckily, I can access Science quite easily from where I am.

Hi, this is David Kellogg, the second author of the Science paper. I appreciate the discussion our paper has generated, but I think a key element of the paper has been mis-characterized.

[...]

*Nowhere* -- I repeat, nowhere -- do we assert that scientific publications don't emphasize things such as "What can I claim?" and "How do I know?" Nowhere do we say that such questions are not helpful.

Twitter and the SMS generation are redefining the art of writing... Twitter and SMS don't represent science, except in an observation. 140 character sentences aren't the sole problem. There's simple no continuous, organized flow to SMS, Twitter. They remind me of dogs barking at night and is reminiscent of. "hey, Hey, hehey hey, heya hey" WTF is that. ...Do I need to place an "I think" in front of a sentence. Who else is writing these words? Its me. If I want to minimize my statement by say "I'm not really sure" or "I don't have any real evidence", then what is the point of writing? To entertain I suppose. I think. Well. Sorta. Ya know. Could be.

I highly doubt that Twitter and the "SMS Generation" are redefining the art of writing. People have been bemoaning bad writers and the decline of writing for thousands of years already and, as far as I can tell, the written word is still chugging along just fine-- something that Twitter and text messaging will not change.

Say what you will about modern forms of communication and writing skills, but there will always be people who are considered "bad writers" as long as writing exists.

On a slightly off-topic note, I think that the 'standards' for English writing are too conservative and do not track well at all with the spoken language. This is, contrary to popular belief, actually a hindrance to writers as they devote more and more time trying to properly adhere to archaic rules and spellings instead of simply expressing their thoughts as they would when speaking aloud.

Don't believe that a conservative writing system can be a hindrance? Just take Medieval Europe as an example: all serious writing was expected to be in Latin. Since no local languages were really used for writing, learning to write really meant learning Latin. Imagine if we, as English speakers, had to learn a completely different language just for writing. It would be ridiculous, but that's what eventually happens when the written language is not allowed to keep up with the spoken word.

In my experience, good scientific writing can be learned just like any other kind of writing. What makes a good paper is a good idea AND a good story. I "suggest" my students to pick up "The Elements of Style", which is short and good enough to get them interested to try and improve further by either books or courses. My humble suggestion is that if we want to teach kids how to become better scientific writers, we don´t need to teach more writing in the science hours, just better writing in the writing hours.

By the way, the double blind experiment suggested in the original article sounds actually fun and leading to good science learning, regardless of the writing part.

Email me (kellogg dot david at gmail dot com) if you want a copy of the actual paper.

Um, actually I can't make that offer: copyright and all that. Sorry. Fortunately, any decent academic library subscribes.

Hi David, yes you can! You don't need Science's permission to send pdf copies of your own work to people who contact you. In fact, Science allows you to put up your article on the preprint server (in fact, you should definitely put it on the server). Just don't use their layout and you'll be fine.

Scientists do not need to become magnificent writers. That is why scientific journals have an editing staff. Scientists should be intimately familiar with writing research papers, but they do not need to be red-ink wielding grammar Nazis.

They do when you encounter undergraduates who struggle to put a basic sentence together using proper grammar, which leads to significant problems in communicating your ideas to your intended audience. I agree completely with MadMac and Singularity's earlier comments; people are losing the ability to write coherently in a formal manner.

It doesn't matter if you've produced cold fusion or cured cancer; if you can't tell anyone about it, you've got problems.

Scientists do not need to become magnificent writers. That is why scientific journals have an editing staff. Scientists should be intimately familiar with writing research papers, but they do not need to be red-ink wielding grammar Nazis. Speaking as a student of the discipline, we can write just fine. The problem lies in boiling complex ideas down to a level that the average moron has a chance to comprehend.

Wait, what? Scientists are TERRIBLE writers (generalization). The journal editing staff isn't your personal spell check, and they get rather pissy when treated that way. Any papers I've submitted just have things circled with some comments telling me how to improve. I don't get all sorts of grammar markings and whatnot fixing it up. It's up to the scientist to correct their papers and resubmit them.

As a student of the discipline, I don't know what discipline you might be a student of. If nobody can understand your work, it's useless. The sad thing is, you don't get paid by other scientists - they don't give you your funding. The people that give you your funding are either business people or politicians, and both groups have the intelligence (when it comes to science) of a third grader (generalization). If you can't explain your work thoroughly to them and make them understand it, well, I have a coffee mug you can have to go out on the streets to get your money.

That's not to say that scientists with poor writing skills don't get money. In the words of several of my professors and managers - "It doesn't matter how good your results are if we can't read them or interpret them. Well documented work that only covers 20% of the project is infinitely more useful to the company/lab than poorly documented work that covers it all."

Also, there's no such thing as a complicated topic or complex idea - only an overcomplicated explanation.

The sad thing is, you don't get paid by other scientists - they don't give you your funding. The people that give you your funding are either business people or politicians, and both groups have the intelligence (when it comes to science) of a third grader (generalization). If you can't explain your work thoroughly to them and make them understand it, well, I have a coffee mug you can have to go out on the streets to get your money.

[...]

Also, there's no such thing as a complicated topic or complex idea - only an overcomplicated explanation.

Wrong on both counts.

1. As someone pointed out above, you get your research grant (i.e., "get paid") by writing research proposals, which get checked by admin staff at the research councils for compliance with the rules, and then get evaluated by fellow scientists, sometimes in multiple rounds. Politicians determine the overall size of the pot, but how the loot is divvied up is down to the scientific community. Sure, the general public must support the scientific enterprise so politicians won't reduce the research budget, but very rarely do scientists address the general public directly, and then only in heavily edited form (such as Scientific American).Edit: Some proposals require you to write a non-specialist summary (which is typically included on the web page of the funding body if the proposal is successful). But reviewers are unlikely to reject a good proposal if this summary is badly written.

2. Of course some ideas are more complex than others. Take for example quantum entanglement. It is easy to give an oversimplified account of it, but a proper explanation will have to include all sorts of subtle aspects.

As a scientist I find it anti-intellectual to dismiss scientific terminology as "jargon." It is not made-up-fancy-words-for-nerds. Scientists (or any member of a 'trade') need to be able to express themselves in ways more specific and nuanced than common vocabulary will allow.

Unfortunately journalists think this is all too much, and inevitably distill our words down into something incorrect (as the author of the manuscript under discussion points out).

It's odd to me when journalists call out scientists for not being better communicators. Scientists are perfectly fine communicators. We publish thousands of journals, hold meetings, conferences, workshops, teach classes and write textbooks. We are good at communicating with people who are interested enough to exert effort to learn. Yes, we get public money, but for all this talk about the obligation to communicate given public money, you'd think the Pentagon would run several 24-hour news channels. If you want to learn about science, there are all the resources in the world, resources created by scientists.

Journalists, however, are supposed to be the expert communicators. One of their functions is supposedly to gather complex information from a variety of contexts and disciplines and explain it to the masses. However, when it comes to science (or really a lot of things) they can't do it. They don't know enough about science to explain it without botching it up.

Thesis of rant: I'm tired of journalists telling scientists they can't communicate when all I see are terrible articles about science written by journalists.

I'm sorry if you feel I've mischaracterized your argument. I thought the novel ideas you put forward were more important to focus on than an extended description of a teaching method that "doesn't take the writing seriously *as writing*" since the post was about how to get scientists to learn how to write better.

Now it's my turn to apologize: You characterized most of our argument quite well! My objection was to a minor point in an otherwise fine article. I didn't want to quibble, but I felt the need when that minor point became a focus of the forum. Honestly, I'm delighted by this piece on the whole.

I've edited the article to correct that paragraph. I suppose it's ironic in a post about clear communication.

ironmaidenrocks wrote:

I'd be interested to see a few items the author of the Ars Technica piece would characterize as "well written and accessible." I should note this isn't because I at all disagree with his claim, but on account of their rarity, I'd like to see a few more positive examples. Thanks.

There was a great example that I know I read in one of the PLoS' but I've not been able to find it despite spending too long looking. That will teach me to rate things in Papers!

Maldoror wrote:

Einbrecher wrote:

The sad thing is, you don't get paid by other scientists - they don't give you your funding. The people that give you your funding are either business people or politicians, and both groups have the intelligence (when it comes to science) of a third grader (generalization). If you can't explain your work thoroughly to them and make them understand it, well, I have a coffee mug you can have to go out on the streets to get your money.

[...]

Also, there's no such thing as a complicated topic or complex idea - only an overcomplicated explanation.

Wrong on both counts.

1. As someone pointed out above, you get your research grant (i.e., "get paid") by writing research proposals, which get checked by admin staff at the research councils for compliance with the rules, and then get evaluated by fellow scientists, sometimes in multiple rounds. Politicians determine the overall size of the pot, but how the loot is divvied up is down to the scientific community. Sure, the general public must support the scientific enterprise so politicians won't reduce the research budget, but very rarely do scientists address the general public directly, and then only in heavily edited form (such as Scientific American).Edit: Some proposals require you to write a non-specialist summary (which is typically included on the web page of the funding body if the proposal is successful). But reviewers are unlikely to reject a good proposal if this summary is badly written.

2. Of course some ideas are more complex than others. Take for example quantum entanglement. It is easy to give an oversimplified account of it, but a proper explanation will have to include all sorts of subtle aspects.

How do you think those research agencies/councils get the money from tax payers that scientists apply for? And those 'admin staff' are almost without exception scientists with PhDs.

How do you think those research agencies/councils get the money from tax payers that scientists apply for?

Via the budget set by Congress/Parliament/whatever applies to your country. I know it is fashionable to blast politicians, but I assert that most are very much aware about the need for a strong scientific enterprise. The taxpayer has a say only via representation.

Quote:

And those 'admin staff' are almost without exception scientists with PhDs.

True, but they are hardly ever in the position to judge proposals on their scientific merits. They have a pool of specialists for this.